61 lines
2.6 KiB
BibTeX
61 lines
2.6 KiB
BibTeX
|
%% This BibTeX bibliography file was created using BibDesk.
|
||
|
|
%% http://bibdesk.sourceforge.net/
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
%% Created for Eric Coissac at 2018-10-18 14:52:51 +0200
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
%% Saved with string encoding Unicode (UTF-8)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@article{Tsallis:94:00,
|
||
|
|
Author = {Tsallis, Constantino},
|
||
|
|
Date-Added = {2018-10-18 14:52:41 +0200},
|
||
|
|
Date-Modified = {2018-10-18 14:52:49 +0200},
|
||
|
|
Journal = {Quim. Nova},
|
||
|
|
Number = 6,
|
||
|
|
Pages = {468--471},
|
||
|
|
Title = {What are the numbers that experiments provide},
|
||
|
|
Volume = 17,
|
||
|
|
Year = 1994}
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
@ARTICLE{Whittaker:10:00,
|
||
|
|
title = "Meta-analyses and mega-mistakes: calling time on meta-analysis
|
||
|
|
of the species richness-productivity relationship",
|
||
|
|
author = "Whittaker, Robert J",
|
||
|
|
abstract = "The form of the species richness-productivity relationship
|
||
|
|
(SRPR) is both theoretically important and contentious. In an
|
||
|
|
effort to distill general patterns, ecologists have undertaken
|
||
|
|
meta-analyses, within which each SRPR data set is first
|
||
|
|
classified into one of five alternative forms: positive, humped
|
||
|
|
(unimodal), negative, U-shaped (unimodal), and no relationship.
|
||
|
|
Herein, I first provide a critique of this approach, based on 68
|
||
|
|
plant data sets/ studies used in three meta-analyses published
|
||
|
|
in Ecology. The meta-analyses are shown to have resulted in
|
||
|
|
highly divergent outcomes, inconsistent and often highly
|
||
|
|
inappropriate classification of data sets, and the introduction
|
||
|
|
and multiplication of errors from one meta-analysis to the next.
|
||
|
|
I therefore call on the ecological community at large to adopt a
|
||
|
|
far more rigorous and critical attitude to the use of
|
||
|
|
meta-analysis. Second, I develop the argument that the
|
||
|
|
literature on the SRPR continues to be bedeviled by a common
|
||
|
|
failing to appreciate the fundamental importance of the scale of
|
||
|
|
analysis, beginning with the confusion evident between concepts
|
||
|
|
of grain, focus, and extent. I postulate that variation in the
|
||
|
|
form of the SRPR at fine scales of analysis owes much to
|
||
|
|
artifacts of the sampling regime adopted. An improved
|
||
|
|
understanding may emerge from combining sampling theory with an
|
||
|
|
understanding of the factors controlling the form of species
|
||
|
|
abundance distributions and species accumulation curves.",
|
||
|
|
journal = "Ecology",
|
||
|
|
publisher = "Eco Soc America",
|
||
|
|
volume = 91,
|
||
|
|
number = 9,
|
||
|
|
pages = "2522--2533",
|
||
|
|
month = sep,
|
||
|
|
year = 2010
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
|